Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramswaroop Dwivedi on 12 February, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 12 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 402 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. COLLECTOR
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
( BY SHRI A.S.BAGHEAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND
RAMSWAROOP DWIVEDI S/O LATE RAMANUJ
DWIVEDI, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE DWARI TEHSIL GURH
DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ASHUTOSH TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on IA No.2298/2021, an application for condonation of delay.
2. Learned counsel for appellant/State submits that when in the year 2017
mutation proceedings were initiated by respondent then appellant came to know
about impugned judgment and decree and in March, 2021 present appeal has
been filed. Relying upon Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Legal
Representatives and Others Vs. Union of India and Another, reported in
(2023) 10 SCC 531, it is urged that delay in filing present appeal be condoned.
It is also urged that Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst.Katiji and Others, reported in
(1987) 2 SCC 107 that generally a case should be decided on merits and it
should not be dismissed just on the basis on limitation. It is also urged that trial
court as well as appellate Court have passed judgement and decree against State
whereas State was unrepresented before trial Court/Appellate Court. Therefore,
it would be proper to decide the case on merits and not to dismiss appeal on
the point of limitation.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent after relying upon Majji
Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors. in Criminal Appeal
No.7696 of 2021, State of U.P. Thr.Exe. Engineer and Ano. Vs. Amar
Nath Yadav , reported in 2021(18) SCC 384, Amalendu Kumar Bera and
Others VS. State of West Bangal, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 52, Union of
India and Others Vs. Nripen Sharma and D.Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of
Kerala and another, submits that present appeal has been filed 14 years 9
months after passing of impugned judgment and decree. It is also urged that
respondent started mutation proceedings on 13.12.2006 and on that date itself
and during proceedings State was made aware of impugned judgment but still
no appeal was filed and appeal has been filed in the year 2021. Therefore, taking
into consideration huge delay, delay in filing cannot be condoned.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
5. Perusal of case file reveals that present second appeal has been filed
by appellant/State against judgment & decree dated 13.07.2006 passed in RCA
No.12A/2006 and present appeal has been filed on 10.03.2021.
6. Perusal of documents filed by the respondent (Annexure R/2) reveals
that after respondent/plaintiff filed an application for mutation on the basis of
judgment and decree dated 13.07.2006 passed in RCA No.12-A/2006, in the
year 2006, then, Tahsildar informed Collector and matter was received in the
Office of Collector on 23.12.2006 and thereafter, there is noting dated
26.12.2008 of Collector Office, Rewa to the effect that case is being sent back
to Tahsildar with the direction for filing appeal.
7. Perusal of documents filed by the appellant/State along with present
appeal reveals that after respondent/plaintiff filed an application for mutation on
the basis of judgment & decree dated 13.07.2006, the Collector, Rewa initiated
suo moto revision and issued show cause notice to Tahsildar etc.
8. If facts mentioned in the preceding paras are taken into consideration,
then, clearly there is unexplainable huge delay in filing present appeal.
Evidently, appellant/State was in the knowledge of impugned judgment and
decree since 2006 but still it did not initiate any proceeding for filing appeal
immediately.
9. Hence, in view of special facts and circumstances of the case,
principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheo Raj Singh (supra)
and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag (supra), do not apply to the facts
of instant case.
10. Hence, in view of discussion in the forgoing paras and in view of
facts as mentioned in preceding paras, taking into consideration huge delay and
there being no reasonable explanation for the same on record, delay in filing
appeal cannot be condoned.
11. Hence, application filed by appellant/State is dismissed and
resultantly appeal filed by appellant/State is also dismissed as being barred by
limitation.
12. Accordingly, present appeal and IA No.2298/2021 are hereby
disposed of.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
sm
